Jason v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations

CITATION:

Jason v Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations [2015] QCAT 399

PARTIES:	Peter James Jason (Applicant)
v
Department of Transport and Main Roads Passenger Transport Operations (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR163-15

MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:	On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Allen

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for a stay is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

STAY APPLICATION – cancellation of operator’s accreditation – whether physical hardship outweighs public interest where applicant convicted of disqualifying offences

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 22(3) and (4)
Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (Qld) s 20 and 103

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Jason held an Operator Accreditation – Limousine Services which was cancelled as a result of his conviction for a disqualifying offence[1] for which sentenced to 15 months imprisonment suspended after three months on 4 December 2014. The decision was internally reviewed and confirmed on 15 June 2015. Mr Jason then applied to the Tribunal to review the decision[2]. He has now applied for a stay of the original decision pending determination of the review application.
[1]Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (Qld) s 20.
[2]TO(PT) Act s 103.
The Tribunal may make an order staying the operation of a reviewable decision pending the hearing of the application if it considers it desirable to do so in accordance with s 22(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). The Tribunal must have regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made; any submission made to the Tribunal by the decision-maker for the reviewable decision; and the public interest[3]. The Tribunal may also consider other matters in addition to those specified in s 22(4), including whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of the stay[4].
[3]QCAT Act s 20(4).
[4]Eggins v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2013] QCAT 165.
Mr Jason has submitted that the cancellation of his licence is causing him and his partner severe financial hardship. The Department submitted that it is not appropriate to have a person convicted of the type of offences of which Mr Jason was, and who is still serving the suspended portion of his term of imprisonment, operating a passenger service in a limousine. The Tribunal notes that Mr Jason’s driver accreditation was cancelled as a result of the conviction and that cancellation is still current. That the seriousness of the charges, the public interest and the need to uphold the public’s confidence in the operator accreditation scheme must take precedence over the applicant’s personal circumstances. Mr Jason is not prevented from undertaking other paid work for himself.
This is not a case where a licence has been suspended pending the hearing of charges, such as in the Eggins case. Mr Jason has been convicted and is still subject to his sentence. While the Tribunal sympathises with his financial situation the safety of the public must be paramount. It is for him to show that it is appropriate that he regain his operators accreditation at the hearing of the application and so the balance of convenience does not favour him. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it is desirable to grant to stay and the application is refused.

The applicant, Jason, sought a stay of the decision to cancel his accreditation as a passenger transport operator, made by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The decision was based on Jason's conviction for disqualifying offences. The Federal Court was called upon to determine whether the physical hardship that Jason would face if his accreditation was cancelled outweighed the public interest in maintaining road safety and the integrity of the transport system.

The court considered the criteria for granting a stay of a decision to cancel accreditation, focusing on the balance between the applicant's physical hardship and the public interest. The court examined the nature and severity of Jason's disqualifying offences, the likelihood of re-offending, and the potential impact of the cancellation on Jason's livelihood and ability to support his family. The court also weighed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the transport system and the deterrent effect of enforcing the law.

In assessing the evidence presented, the court found that the public interest in cancelling Jason's accreditation was significant, given the nature of his offences and the potential risk he posed to public safety. The court determined that the physical hardship that Jason would experience, while considerable, did not outweigh the compelling public interest in upholding the integrity of the transport system. Consequently, the court refused the application for a stay, upholding the decision to cancel Jason's accreditation as a passenger transport operator.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay of the decision to cancel Jason's accreditation was refused. The court emphasised that this decision was not a final determination of the merits of the application for review, but rather a preliminary ruling on the application for a stay. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to seek a review of the decision to cancel his accreditation on the substantive merits.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established